I'm your great, great Blogfather, and I'm going to show you how things really works. Look grateful.

Saturday, May 10, 2003

I haven't dealt much with the "anti-idiotarians" of late. One, Damien Penny, wrote a blurb, however, that I felt compelled to highlight. I was originally going to just post it in Damian's comments section, but decided to bring it here.

f I had just a little more time, I'd savage Antonia Zerbisias's latest mental drippings, in which she bemoans the lack of "outrage" over Rachel Corrie's death, thrashes "Likudnik" bloggers like Charles Johnson for what they've written about her (of course, she does not deal substantially with evidence that her death was accidental, or that Corrie was a major terror-apologist), hints at a Zionist media conspiracy to cover up Israel's atrocities, and claims Charley Reese as a source - a source who's been hassled by the evil Zionist media watchdogs, naturally...

Fortunately, I've sent it to Charles and I know he won't let me down. Go get 'em, Charles! Kill! Kill!

(The Charles in question is the proprietor of "Little Green Footballs", a site notorious for its tolerance for profoundly racist, propagandist and xenophobic commentary, as long as it aligns with the positions of the site owner.)

Still, this raises a few questions I'd like to ask Damian:

First, Damian, does said evidence that the death was accidental or that she was a supposed "terror-apologist" warrant this?
Taken from the Toronto Star column in question

On idiotarian.com: "I nominate the Bulldozer for the Nobel Peace Prize! It improved society; and now with blood on its hands, I mean blade, it'll fit in with past recipients such as: Terrorfat, Mandela, Carter." On littlegreenfootballs.com, where she's known as "the flat bitch:'' "How 'bout we all get together at Rachel's grave and stage a vomit-in on it?'' while on usefulwork.com, "I hope that Rachel's parents read this site. I just want to say hi; and that at least you have the knowledge that she died painfully."

I'm just a little curious. Especially if the shoe had been on the other foot, and if it were, say, a French bulldozer running over an Ivory Coast activist, followed up by the French military firing tear gas at those attending said activist's funeral? Would he support a "vomit in" at said activist's gravesite?

Oh, and for that mater, was Damian really endorsing the comparison of Nelson Mandela (who was called a terrorist during the days of Apartheid by the Americans) with Yassir Arafat? Would he endorse a "vomit-in" at the gravesite of Mr. Mandela when he finally passes on?

Second question. Did Damian really mean to quote a source (specifically, CAMERA) as proof that the article is invalid? Odd choice, when said source is in contention in the article itself. This just slightly begs the question; in fact, tt would be akin to using Mary Rosh as a primary source on the Lott pseudonymity scandal. This is especially questionable considering that CAMERA is an advocacy group. I imagine a quick google or Lexis/Nexis search could come up with several examples of issues where CAMERA shaded its stories to favour its positions. Those sources might well have their own positions, and might be shading their own stories. Unfortunately for Mr. Perry, by simply citing CAMERA as proof of bias, he's made all these other sources just as legitimate, and as they question CAMERA's validity, Zerbisia's source remains substantially unchallenged. Sauce for gander, sauce for goose.

(Yeah, it feels like beating up a newborn puppy. Blame Ampersand and Mike Silverman, whose debate over similar issues led me over to Damian's tendentious thrashings.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

A political blogger using a pseudonym inspired by both the historical orator and Orson Scott Card's use of pseudonyms in the "Ender's Game" books. For more, see the first post.
No further connection to Card's work is expressed or implied.